On 01/03/2018 a Contract - Other Contract case was filed by CITY OF LOS ANGELES against FLOWER APARTMENTS LLC in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.
****8943
01/03/2018
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
HOLLY E. KENDIG
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
DOES 1 TO 25
FLOWER APARTMENTS LLC
7/10/2018: Minute Order
7/12/2018: NOTICE OF COURT SETTING A SEPTEMBER 6, 2018 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING
9/6/2018: Minute Order
9/7/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
9/7/2018: DECLARATION OF JACOB N. SEGURA IN RESPONSE TO OSC RE SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ON JULY 10, 2018
10/4/2018: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order
10/11/2018: Notice of Continuance
12/7/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice
12/14/2018: Notice
2/25/2019: Case Management Order
2/25/2019: Minute Order
5/7/2018: Minute Order
4/24/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
3/12/2018: DEFENDANT FLOWER APARTMENTS, LLC'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
1/18/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
1/16/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
1/5/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE & OSC RE PROOF OF SERVICE
1/3/2018: SUMMONS
at 08:30 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held
Case Management Order; Filed by Clerk
Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk
Notice (of case reassignment and order for plaintiff to give notice); Filed by City of Los Angeles (Plaintiff)
Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk
Notice of Continuance (of Case Management Conference); Filed by City of Los Angeles (Plaintiff)
Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by Clerk
Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by Clerk
DECLARATION OF JACOB N. SEGURA IN RESPONSE TO OSC RE SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ON JULY 10, 2018
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
Answer; Filed by Flower Apartments, LLC (Defendant)
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by City of Los Angeles (Plaintiff)
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by City of Los Angeles (Plaintiff)
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE & OSC RE PROOF OF SERVICE
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1) ACCOUNT STATED ;ETC
SUMMONS
Complaint; Filed by City of Los Angeles (Plaintiff)
Case Number: BC688943 Hearing Date: February 11, 2020 Dept: 26
The court has read and considered all papers filed in connection with Plaintiff City of Los Angeles’s Motion To Compel Responses To Discovery Requests. No dispositive tentative ruling is issued at this time.
The Court has concerns regarding Counsel for Defendant Jacob N. Segura’s medical condition and requests that the parties please provide an update at the February 11, 2020 hearing as to whether Mr. Segura has resumed work following the joint stipulation filed on December 18, 2019 and whether Plaintiff’s Counsel has received any communication since mid-December 2019.
Case Number: BC688943 Hearing Date: December 09, 2019 Dept: 26
|
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, acting by and through the los angeles department of water and power, Plaintiff, v.
flower apartments, llc et al.,
Defendants. |
Case No.: BC688943
Hearing Date: December 9, 2019
[TENTATIVE] order RE: PLAINTIFF CITY OF LOS ANGELES’ motion to COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS
|
Background
On November 8, 2019, Plaintiff City of Los Angeles, acting by and through the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant motion to compel responses from Defendant Flower Apartments, LLC (“Defendant”) to (1) Special Interrogatories (“SROG”) and (2) Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”). Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $800[1] against Defendant and its counsel.
On August 16, 2019, Plaintiff served the discovery requests on Defendant. Plaintiff afforded Defendant additional time to provide responses. Despite this extended time, as of the filing of this motion, Plaintiff has not received responses from Defendant.
No opposition or reply has been filed. Plaintiff’s opposition was due on November 22, 2019, and Defendant’s reply was due on December 2, 2019.
Motions to Compel
Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to the SROG and RPD is granted pursuant to CCP §§ 2030.290 and 2031.300. Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses to the outstanding discovery requests, without objections, within fifteen (15) days of notice of this order.
Sanctions
Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $800 against Defendant and its counsel.
The Court finds Defendant’s failure to respond a misuse of the discovery process.
Sanctions have been sufficiently noticed against Defendant and its counsel. The Court finds that the amount requested -- $800[2] for 4 total hours of work to prepare the motion and attend the hearing at $200 per hour – is reasonable. Accordingly, the Court awards $800 in monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel jointly and severally to be paid to Plaintiff by and through counsel within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to the SROG and RPD is granted pursuant to CCP §§ 2030.290 and 2031.300. Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses to Plaintiff’s SROG and RPD, without objections, within fifteen (15) days of notice of this order.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted. Defendant Flower Apartments, LLC and Defendant’s Counsel Jacob N. Segura are jointly and severally ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $800 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.
The moving party is ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such.
DATED: December 9, 2019 ___________________________
Elaine Lu
Judge of the Superior Court
[1] Plaintiff’s notice of motion states the amount is $800 (Notice of Motion 2:7), while the memorandum of points and authorities states the amount as $900 (Points and Authorities 3:24.) The extra $100 is from litigation costs. (Lazaro Decl. ¶ 7.)
[2] The Court may not award the $100 for litigation costs because of improper notice in the notice of motion. (See Footnote 1.)